And Significance of Holocaust Revisionism

Dr Joel S Hayward Joel Hayward Working Party Report Executive Summary University’s apology to NZ Jewish Community University’s news site Note: The Library at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand is singularly well stocked, with eighteen different works of history by David Irving.

REPORT to the Council of The University of Canterbury of the Working Party established to enquire into: the circumstances under which the degree of Master of Arts (with First Class Honours) was awarded by the University in 1993 to Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward, on the basis of a thesis entitled ‘ The Fate of Jews in German Hands ‘: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism’. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1

This enquiry was triggered by a letter dated 4 April 2000 to the Chancellor of the University of Canterbury, the Rev.

Dr Dame Phyllis Guthardt, from Mr David Zwartz, the President of the New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC). (Appendix A) The letter expressed grave concern that the University had in 1993 awarded a Master of Arts degree with First Class Honours to Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward (Dr Hayward) on the basis of a thesis written by him entitled, ‘ The Fate of Jews in German Hands ‘: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism’. 1.2

The NZJC claimed, inter alia, that the thesis (a) promoted anti-Semitism, (b) incorporated Holocaust denial, (c) denied the existence of gas chambers used in the Holocaust and (d) caused great distress to the New Zealand Jewish community, particularly Holocaust survivors.

NZJC perceived that the University supported Holocaust denial through the granting of a degree based on a thesis which impugned the memory of those killed in the Holocaust and belittled the trauma of Holocaust survivors. 1.3 The thesis itself and criticisms of it will be discussed later in this Report.

The thrust of the NZJC’s letter was to ask the University to revoke the award of the degree on the bases that: (a) it should never have accepted the thesis, the conclusions of which were perverse, and (b) those involved in assessing and grading the thesis were in dereliction of their duty to apply a high quality of academic standards to their task, including the checking of sources and reference materials.

NZJC asked that the award of an MA degree be substituted by the award of a BA (Hons) degree. 1.4 After formal presentation of the thesis and the award of the degree, access to the thesis was embargoed in circumstances later to be discussed. After the embargo had been lifted, on 26 January 2000, Dr Hayward wrote an Addendum to the thesis in which he disclaimed some of the conclusions reached in the thesis.

He hoped that the Addendum would prevent the thesis causing distress to the Jewish Community and being misused by persons and groups with malevolent intent. (Appendix B) 1.5 After the NZJC’s letter to the Chancellor, articles critical of the thesis appeared in the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle (The Chronicle).

This journal published a letter of retraction from Dr Hayward dated 17 February 2000, apologising for ‘mistakes I have made as an inexperienced student’: (Appendix C) Considerable media interest followed, including a television interview on The Holmes Show featuring Mr Zwartz and Professor Daryl Le Grew, Vice-Chancellor of the University. Public concern was also expressed through letters to the editor in a range of publications. 1.6 The University took seriously the issues raised by NZJC.

On 4 May 2000, the Council of the University formally set up a Working Party pursuant to Section 193(2)(i) of the Education Act 1989 (The Act). The Working Party’s terms of reference were defined thus. 1.

To investigate widely and to report upon the circumstances in which the degree of Master of Arts (with First Class Honours) came to be awarded by the University of Canterbury in 1993 to Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward on the basis of a thesis completed by him entitled ‘The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism’. 2.

In particular, and without restricting the generality of the Working Party’s brief, to enquire into: (a) How this topic/research proposal was approved and whether the topic/research proposal changed during the course of the candidate’s work on his thesis. (b) The supervision of the thesis within the University of Canterbury and its examination both internally and externally. (c) Why the thesis was embargoed in the University of Canterbury Library. 3.

To consider the request of the New Zealand Jewish Council that the University revoke the grant of the degree of Master of Arts with First Class Honours to Dr Hayward and substitute it with an award of the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) (with First Class Honours). In particular the Working Party is to consider whether, under the relevant legislation and University statutes, the above request is legally possible. 4.

To investigate and report upon any other relevant matter of significance which may arise in the course of the Working Party’s deliberations. 5. The Working Party is to determine its own procedures and to seek legal advice, as deemed appropriate. 6.

The Working Party is to report to the Council of the University of Canterbury upon completion of its investigation on the matters set out above. 1.7 The Working Party so appointed comprised: The Honourable Sir Ian Barker, QC, Chancellor of the University of Auckland from 1991 to 1999; and Former Senior Puisne Judge of the High Court of New Zealand. (Chairman). Emeritus Professor Ann Trotter, formerly Professor of History and Assistant Vice-Chancellor at the University of Otago.

Professor Stuart Macintyre, Professor of History and Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne. 1.8 The Working Party met together in Christchurch in July, October and November 2000. The Chairman and/or Professor Trotter visited on other occasions. It received statements from and interviewed the persons listed in Appendix D. The Working Party received legal advice from Mr A. D.

McBeath of Macfarlane, Dougall, Stringer, Solicitors, Christchurch, who instructed as senior counsel, Mr L. L. Stevens, QC in Auckland, who is experienced in advising on University matters. 1.9 Emeritus Professor J H Jensen, now retired from the chair of History at the University of Waikato, was interviewed by the Chairman in Raglan in May 2000 before he left for a year’s teaching in the United States.

He provided written material to the Working Party and spoke to it by video link on 11 October 2000 and made further comments by e-mail. Emeritus Professor David McIntyre and Dr Marie Peters (both in the History Department of the University at relevant times) spoke to the Chairman and Professor Trotter on 23 May 2000. Professor David McIntyre spoke to Professor Stuart Macintyre on 12 October 2000.

Professor David McIntyre was not well enough to attend a meeting with the full Working Party. 1.10 The Working Party’s report has taken some time to complete. The issues are numerous, complex and sensitive. The members of the Working Party — all from different cities — had other commitments. Detailed comment from affected parties on documents and submissions produced by NZJC had to be obtained as per the Schedule which is Appendix E.

The Working Party makes no apology for the time taken to complete the enquiry. An enquiry of this seriousness, with so many issues impinging upon both academic freedom and the proper administration of Universities, cannot be rushed. 2 NARRATIVE 2.1 What follows in this section is a narrative of the principal events of relevance to the enquiry. The more important issues will be the subject of separate discussions. 2.2 Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward was born on 27 May 1964.

In 1988, he enrolled at the University of Canterbury for a BA degree, which he completed in three years. He was capped Bachelor of Arts on 8 May 1991. His BA papers were largely taken in the Departments of History and Classics as can be seen from his academic record. (Appendix F) 2.3 At the end of 1990, Dr Hayward had decided to proceed to an MA degree and was considering possible thesis topics.

The requirements for this degree were for a two-year course with the candidate taking four papers in the first year and writing a thesis in the second. Initially, Dr Hayward had considered a thesis topic in Ancient History, having completed several BA papers in the Classics Department.

A member of the academic staff of the Classics Department considered that Dr Hayward would need another year of study with Greek and Latin before he could commence post-graduate studies in Classics. 2.4 At this time, Dr Hayward was actively involved in Jewish and mainstream Zionist activities. He identified with what he claimed as a Jewish background through his maternal grandmother, although he had never formally become a member of the Jewish faith.

Before the Working Party, NZJC cast doubt on his claim to a Jewish background. The Working Party does not find it necessary to adjudicate on Dr Hayward’s claim to Jewish ancestry. Before he commenced his University studies at age 23, Dr Hayward claimed to have read widely about Judaism, Jewish history and Zionism and to have studied Hebrew. He joined the local branch of the New Zealand Friends of Israel Association.

He contributed articles for The Chronicle and won a University short-story competition on a Jewish historical topic. He travelled to Israel several times. In 1989 he had formed, along with several friends, an incorporated society called ‘Opposition to Anti-Semitism Inc.’ (OAS).

This group he headed until early 1991 when he retired after what he described as a personality clash, although a biographical note to an article he wrote for an Australian Jewish publication in January 1992, ascribed his departure from OAS as being due to pressure of work. 2.5 During his time with OAS, Dr Hayward, having published a number of articles on anti-Semitism, claimed to have pondered on the historiography of ‘revisionists’ of the Holocaust.

They seemed to him to maintain complex arguments which were contrary to received opinion. He considered that Holocaust Revisionism would provide him with a suitable thesis topic. He discussed the idea with Dr Vincent Orange, a Reader in the History Department who expressed interest in supervising the topic, although Dr Orange was not himself an expert on the Holocaust nor was he familiar with the literature on Holocaust Revisionism.

When studying as an undergraduate, Dr Hayward had found Dr Orange a helpful, enthusiastic and stimulating teacher. According to Dr Hayward, Dr Orange advised him that his best approach was to examine the historiography of Holocaust Revisionism rather than focus directly on the events of the 1930s and 1940s themselves. Dr Orange agreed to be the supervisor of a thesis along these lines.

The Working Party notes that Dr Orange considered Dr Hayward’s alleged Jewish background a factor which he took into account when considering the thesis proposal.

Although Dr Hayward’s academic record for his BA papers was respectable but not outstanding, Dr Orange considered him a student of great promise, of greater maturity and industry than most, one well able to tackle this difficult topic by reason of these qualities, his knowledge of German and his supposed Jewish background. 2.6 Dr Hayward drafted a thesis proposal in late 1990/early 1991. This document was counter-signed by Dr Orange.

It was submitted for approval to the Acting Head of the History Department, Dr Marie Peters (the Head of Department, Professor David McIntyre, being overseas on leave at the time). Although it is clear that Dr Hayward had submitted to the Department a detailed thesis proposal, this document is no longer in existence; nor is there now any official record of the progress of the supervision of Dr Hayward’s thesis or of the internal examiner’s and external examiner’s reports.

The Working Party has only been able to source the reports of Dr Orange (as internal examiner) and of Professor Jensen (as external examiner) from Dr Orange’s personal records and not from any official University records. The Working Party comments on the lack of relevant records later. At that time, the Department had appointed as Dean of Graduate Studies (DoGS), Dr Len Richardson, whose role was to effectuate the enrolment of Dr Hayward for an MA.

Dr Richardson played no part in the selection of the thesis topic or of the supervisor. 2.7 In the initial stages, the thesis topic was not firm. The title went through several changes as outlined in para. 2.11 with the apparent initial title being extremely broad. The title and proposed scope should have been stated in the thesis proposal.

The Working Party was informed by Dr Orange that lack of precision was not an unusual attribute of an MA history thesis topic, especially in its early stages. According to him, a final title is frequently settled upon only when the thesis is ready for presentation. Dr Hayward enrolled in 1991 for an MA degree consisting of four papers and a thesis to be taken over 2 years.

Under the Regulations applicable to History MAs, the papers were required to have been taken in the student’s first year. 2.8 Dr Peters, as acting Head of Department (HoD), told the Working Party that her best recollection is that she tried hard to dissuade Dr Hayward from writing an MA thesis on a topic involving the Holocaust.

From her recollection of his written thesis proposal and of her discussions with Dr Hayward, he aimed to look at the historiography of Holocaust Revisionism with some assessment of the validity of the case advanced but the thesis would not and could not be a comprehensive alternative account of the Holocaust. Because the literature on the Holocaust was burgeoning, Dr Peters did not think an MA student could keep up with it all.

Nor did she think that a student at Dr Hayward’s stage in his career would have the necessary skills to assess, for example, the purported scientific evidence that some revisionists were then producing to prove that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. 2.9 Dr Peters’ recollections were not based on any doubts that the subject of Holocaust Revisionism was a proper one for historical study. In her view, academic freedom requires that all areas of the past be open to honest investigation.

However, other than to express her concern, she did not, as Acting HoD, refuse to approve the thesis topic. She did not consider that Dr Hayward was setting out with an ideological agenda. Moreover, it was unprecedented for a HoD in History to overrule the choice of a thesis topic approved by a supervisor who was a member of the Department.

Her recollection is that she discussed her misgivings with Dr Hayward and Dr Orange, and possibly Dr Richardson, but encountered no objections from any of them. Dr Hayward has no recollection of being discouraged by Dr Peters. Nor does Dr Orange recall any concerns being expressed by her. However, having heard the persons concerned, the Working Party prefers Dr Peters’ version on this aspect.

In any event, the Working Party could find no evidence of formal approval by the Department of either the thesis proposal or the appointment of Dr Orange as supervisor. 2.10 Dr Peters told the Working Party that the initiative for a Masters thesis topic normally lay with the student who would approach a possible supervisor. The Department encouraged work over a wide variety of topics, constrained only by the availability of suitable sources and adequate supervision.

The student was required to present a written proposal in about 500 words of the proposed subject together with a preliminary working bibliography of primary and secondary sources. This proposal was then signed by both the student and supervisor as an indication that the topic was recognised as viable.

The proposal was then filed (usually by DoGS) in the Department’s office in a folder on which should have been placed regular statements from the supervisor indicating whether the student’s progress had been satisfactory or otherwise. Dr Orange has no recollection of preparing statements in this case. 2.11

The final thesis title, ‘The Fate of Jews in German Hands’, was not mentioned at the time to Dr Peters: according to her, the title was something like the final form of the sub-title (i.e. ‘An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism’) Dr Richardson confirmed the enrolment procedures as outlined by Dr Peters. His particular recollection does not extend beyond March 1991 when he went on leave.

The New Zealand Journal of History (NZJH) publishes annually the titles of theses under preparation in all New Zealand universities. In October 1991, the title there shown for Dr Hayward’s thesis was ‘The Jews in World War II’. In October 1992, it was ‘Holocaust Revisionism’; in October 1993, after the thesis had been accepted for the award of the degree, it was ‘The Fate of the Jews in German Hands’.

In May 1992, in an affidavit in the Court proceedings referred to in paragraph 2.27, Dr Hayward stated the tentative title as: ‘The International Growth and Impact of Holocaust Revisionism’. In a biographical note in an Australian publication, Without Prejudice, published in January 1992, it was referred to as ‘The World-wide Growth and Impact of Holocaust Revisionism’.

Although nobody can now remember, it seems likely to the Working Party that some member of the History Department staff would have supplied to NZJH the thesis topics currently on record. Thus it seems likely that an excessively broad topic, ‘The Jews in World War II’ was the topic on which thesis approval was based.

Ignoring its extreme sensitivity, the extraordinarily broad scope of such a topic was wholly inappropriate for a thesis forming half a degree requirement, particularly given the fairly narrow prescription outlined in the Regulations for an MA thesis. 2.12 On 3 March 1991, Dr Hayward applied to the University to write the thesis in 1991 and to complete the papers in 1992.

In his application to the Registrar, he noted that he had submitted a thesis proposal to the History Department where it had been approved by the Head of Department and DoGS. (His application and accompanying documents are Appendix G). Dr Hayward noted in his letter of application that ‘my proposed thesis will focus in part on the activities of the Institute for Historical Review (Costa Mesa, California), who recently held their 10th International Revisionist Conference.

It would be good to complete work on the 10th conference from which many new developments arose before the 11th conference commenced in November 1992′. The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) will be mentioned later.

Other reasons stated for seeking the switch were: (a) Dr Orange could not be present for much of 1992 and would not be able to supervise the thesis in that year; (Dr Orange was on sabbatical leave for the first eight months of 1992); (b) Working on the thesis would not interfere with Mrs Hayward’s part-time employment to the same extent as would Dr Hayward’s attendance at University at fixed times. The couple had three young children, including a baby with health problems.

The Working Party was unable to find any provision in the relevant Regulations which would have permitted a thesis to have been taken before the papers. 2.13 On 8 March 1991, Dr Peters commented on Dr Hayward’s application to work on his thesis before taking his papers in the following terms: ‘this is not an application to complete the thesis before the courses, it is to begin the thesis before the courses are completed”.

The student has been clearly told (and will be informed in writing by the Department that if this request is approved) that the thesis may not be submitted before the coursework is complete.

We envisage that the final draft will not be written until after November 1992. ‘We support the application in these terms because (unusually) the student has presented a very carefully worked out thesis proposal and factually because we cannot offer supervision between December 1991 and September 1992 when Dr Orange will be on leave. We would not normally consider such an arrangement, but in this case, it would seem to be a grave hardship for the student.

It would make it impossible for him to do the thesis he has so carefully planned without delaying the completion of his degree. The other grounds mentioned in the application seemed subsidiary to this.’ (Emphasis added). 2.14 The then Dean of Arts, Mr John Jennings, on 11 March 1991, noted the file thus: ‘Resolution should read “be permitted to enrol in Hist 690 in 1991, MA History courses in 1992, and complete the thesis in late 1992”.’

Provided this can be done in line with the HoD suggestion, recommend approval.’ The application was then approved without comment by the then Vice-Chair of the Academic Administration Committee (AAC), Professor Lee, on 12 March 1991. There is no record of written advice to Dr Hayward of the kind proposed by Dr Peters in her memo quoted in Para 2.13. Dr Hayward was advised by the Registry on 13 March 1991 that his application had been successful.

The documents referred to are the only records held by the University Registry or the History Department concerning the thesis, other than Dr Hayward’s academic record, some scholarship records and a formal letter from the Department to the Registry dated 31 March 1993 advising that the degree should be awarded. The Working Party is therefore unable to peruse the ‘carefully worked out thesis proposal’ referred to in Dr Peters’ memorandum.

It appears likely that the broad thesis title referred to in the October 1991 edition of NZJH was the initial title. Dr Peters, Professor David McIntyre and even Dr Hayward himself considered, in hindsight, that it would have been better for Dr Hayward to have taken the papers before the thesis, particularly Dr Connolly’s paper on History as a Discipline. The Working Party agrees. 2.15 Work on the thesis was commenced by Dr Hayward in early 1991 under the supervision of Dr Orange.

He recalls seeing Dr Hayward regularly during 1991. Dr Orange said that, normally, in the early stages of a supervision, he would consider draft passages in a candidate’s thesis and verify all references and make suggestions as to style and content. Dr Orange said that his practice was to persuade his students to write for the external examiner who would be casting a critical eye over the thesis.

He would tell them that he was ‘on their side’ — an unsatisfactory approach for one who has, at the conclusion of the thesis, to assume the role of its examiner. Comment on the thesis itself and on its supervision will be offered in detail later. Dr Hayward claimed that Dr Orange always encouraged him along the lines, ‘If it is important, put it in’. Dr Orange kept no supervision diary. 2.16 Dr Orange has been employed in the History Department at the University from July 1962.

His present position is Reader (Associate Professor). He specialises in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. He teaches undergraduate papers on The Great War 1914-18 and Europe 1900-1945. Since 1995, he has taught a paper described as ‘The Life and Times of Winston Churchill, 1874-1945’. He has supervised theses on subjects on the 20th Century and sometimes on Medieval European history.

In 1993 & 1994 he supervised three essays, equivalent to one paper at the MA level in this latter field: between 1985 and 1997, he supervised 8 MA theses. All but one of his Masters students, obtained First Class Honours. Three students (including Dr Hayward) were awarded PhDs for work undertaken under Dr Orange’s direction in the 1990s. In earlier years, some 12 students had completed under his tutelage, essays on Portuguese History, equivalent to one paper at the MA level.

He trained as a medievalist, and later did work in European colonial history. He subsequently moved into the study of modern European history and modern military history. He maintained with vigour that he is neither anti-Semitic nor a Holocaust denier. Having seen and heard Dr Orange at length, the Working Party does not find him either anti-Semitic or a Holocaust denier. The Working Party was impressed with Dr Orange’s commitment to his University teaching.

He is clearly dismayed at the furore that has occurred. 2.17 Dr Orange has published biographies on notable Air Force officers in the World War II. He has acted as external examiner for theses written at other New Zealand and Australian universities and for courses taught in Military History at the University of Waikato until 1995.

He has held a number of positions in the wider university community and was elected as a member of Royal Aeronautical Society in 1989 in recognition of his interest in aviation. His list of publications indicates a fairly wide-ranging output on a variety of topics, with particular emphasis on the Second World War. However, he makes no claim to any particular expertise on the Holocaust or to any familiarity with the literature on Holocaust Revisionism.

Dr Orange impressed the Committee as a caring man with a strong pastoral care for students and a lively interest in a wide range of historical topics. The Working Party’s impression was that he assisted graduate students as conscientiously as he could within the confines of his expertise.

He now realises that the Hayward thesis was far too long and that it did not equate with the prescription in the then University Calendar that an MA thesis, which was to be the basis of half a candidate’s overall result, ‘shall be judged primarily not on the contribution a thesis makes to knowledge but on the evidence it affords of the candidate’s understanding of the principles of historical research and ability to apply them’: However, he maintained with vigour before the Working Party that

Dr Hayward was a talented scholar and that the thesis was being unfairly attacked. He basically adhered to the views in his Examiner’s Report, to be later discussed. 2.18 Dr Orange was not troubled by Dr Hayward’s choice of topic — even in its broadly-expressed form. He did not appear then, or when he met with the Working Party, to have been sensitive to the possible repercussions from any thesis which even hinted at Holocaust denial.

The Working Party considers Dr Orange naïve if he did not see any difficulty with the subject or with Dr Hayward’s treatment of it, particularly in the latter stages of the thesis. He was, on his own admission, not a specialist Holocaust historian and was without detailed knowledge of the Revisionist debate. He encouraged Dr Hayward to make enquiries through all manner of sources. The bibliography included within the thesis indicates that Dr Hayward approached many overseas sources.

Two of these, Mr David Irving in London and the Rev. Countess in the United States, supplied material to him in exchange for a copy of the thesis when finished. According to Dr Orange, Dr Hayward did not tell Dr Orange that he had entered into these arrangements. Dr Hayward said that he did. The Working Party prefers Dr Orange’s recollection. The Working Party thinks it highly unlikely that Dr Orange would have approved of such an arrangement.

He impressed as one who would regard the placing of a student under an obligation in this way to have been quite inappropriate. 2.19 Dr Orange considered Dr Hayward a promising young postgraduate student with a bright academic future in the discipline of history. At a time when academic appointments in History were difficult to obtain, Dr Orange foresaw the topic of the Holocaust as one of huge interest, which could provide a ‘break-through’ for Dr Hayward into a major field of research.

Dr Orange believed that Dr Hayward’s Jewish background (as he believed him to have) and his ability with the German language would help him achieve this early break-through. Dr Orange clearly found it difficult to restrain what he saw as Dr Hayward’s enthusiasm for research and his determination to proceed with the thesis at his pace. He considered Dr Hayward exceptionally diligent, with a capacity to gather material from obscure sources and to show ‘mature judgment’ in using these sources.

He found Dr Hayward’s company ‘unfailingly stimulating’. He came to regard him virtually as a colleague. He therefore ‘indulged’ Dr Hayward’s passion a little ‘deeper’. Dr Orange found Dr Hayward’s judgments carefully balanced, even on extremely sensitive subjects and judged that Dr Hayward had ‘bent over backwards’ in his determination to be fair. He never considered that Dr Hayward, he or the University would or should be branded as ‘Holocaust deniers’.

He felt that the ‘richly detailed content’ of the thesis offered an opportunity for Dr Hayward to ‘carve out’ at least one article for submission to a learned journal. 2.20 In late 1990 or early 1991, Dr Hayward wrote an article for an Australian Jewish publication, Without Prejudice. It was published in December 1991 and was entitled ‘Holocaust Revisionism in New Zealand: The Thinking Man’s Anti-Semitism?’.

In the article, he noted a campaign in New Zealand to deny the verity of the Holocaust and that no one had taken to Court the distributors of Holocaust Revisionism material. He recommended that the Jewish community in New Zealand should try to keep the Holocaust in the collective memory of other New Zealanders. He noted that Holocaust Revisionism was considered by most scholars to be a form of anti-Semitism.

Generally, the article was critical of Holocaust Revisionists and did not pursue the themes later found in the thesis. The article is Appendix H. 2.21 A biographical note about the author at the foot of Appendix H states that Joel Hayward was a ‘tutor and post-graduate history student at the University of Canterbury currently working on a thesis entitled ‘The World-Wide Growth and Impact of Holocaust Revisionism’.

He is said in the note to have formed a national society, which he headed, ‘until his workload forced him to stand down in July 1991 (called Opposition to Anti-Semitism Inc.), which has been effective in educating Jewish New Zealanders about local forms and manifestations of Anti-Semitism’. 2.22 Dr Orange’s supervision of the thesis continued until he left on sabbatical leave on 1 December 1991.

His recollection at the Working Party’s July discussions is that ‘by the time I went on leave, we had spent most of the time over the sheer hard labour of assembling masses of material. He had written in acceptable prose little at that stage’. In the October meeting with the Working Party, Dr Orange was more inclined to say that the bulk of the thesis had been written before he went away. Dr Hayward inclines to this latter version. Dr Orange returned to duty on 1 September 1992.

During his time overseas, Dr Orange had no memory of any contact with Dr Hayward, although Dr Hayward claimed Dr Orange had obtained some material for him in Washington. 2.23 Dr Orange claimed that, in his absence, such supervision of the thesis as was required was left in the hands of Professor David McIntyre, the then Head of Department. Dr Orange did not consider much supervision necessary during his absence because Dr Hayward would be heavily committed with his papers until he returned.

The extent of Professor David McIntyre’s supervision of Dr Hayward during Dr Orange’s absence is not clear to the Working Party. Professor David McIntyre’s only recollection is of his involvement in the 1992 OAS incident, which will be discussed shortly. He does not recall any formal request from Dr Orange to take over the supervision of Dr Hayward. There was no Departmental record of any assignment of Dr Hayward to another supervisor during Dr Orange’s absence.

Nor does the re-assignment of this student seem to have been regarded as coming within the purview of DoGS. Professor McIntyre approved the invitation to Professor Jensen to act as external examiner. He later read Professor Jensen’s report, and was pleased to see that Professor Jensen’s conclusions coincided with his earlier impressions, formed when he read a draft of the incomplete thesis at the time of the alleged OAS incident in May 1992.

However, Professor David McIntyre stated that the final part of the thesis – the Conclusion – which is clearly its most controversial part, was not in the draft that he read in May 1992. He did recall suggesting to Dr Hayward that he was being over-impressed by David Irving. Professor McIntyre said that Dr Hayward was largely concentrating on his papers during 1992.

Indeed, Dr Hayward told the Working Party he had been particularly impressed with Dr Connolly’s paper, ‘History as a Discipline’, which discussed historical method. 2.24 On 26 January 1992, three of Doctor Hayward’s erstwhile colleagues in the OAS had afternoon tea with Dr Hayward at the residence of one of them. There is a conflict as to whether he invited himself or whether they invited him. The Working Party is not required to decide this point.

In the course of the afternoon, they discussed a whole range of things including his thesis. He claimed that, during the process he became ‘sarcastic, frustrated, annoyed, amused and puzzled’ but never suspected anything was amiss. In fact, his ‘friends’ had hidden tape recorders and a camera. They recorded the afternoon’s conversation, which extended over some three hours.

He claimed that they created a 13 minutes selective version of his comments as a video, which was then circulated amongst Jewish agencies and individuals, both inside and outside New Zealand.

Dr Hayward acknowledged he had said some ‘dumb and silly things’ in the course of the afternoon that ‘inexperienced students sometimes do’, but which did not represent his current views. 2.25 Dr Hayward subsequently took legal advice concerning what seems to the Working Party to have been an underhand and unjustifiable intrusion into his privacy.

The Working Party has been advised by Senior Counsel that the tapes and video record should not be viewed by the Working Party for a range of legal reasons. The OAS wrote to the Registrar of the University on 5 May 1992 with claims that Dr Hayward, in the course of this secretly recorded conversation, had said that Hitler did not plan or know about the genocide of the Jewish people and that the Nazi ‘final solution’ was only ‘forced expulsion’.

The letter noted that Dr Hayward had said that he had spent 64 pages of his thesis examining the Leuchter report (of which more later) and that Dr Orange had stated that there were no gas chambers. The letter opined that an MA should not be awarded on the basis of the thesis.

The authors of the letter also sent a video tape. (This letter and following documents comprise Appendix I). 2.26 The Working Party pays no regard to what may or may not have been said by Dr Hayward on the occasion of the surreptitious recording of his conversation. However, the incident has one important side-effect.

The letter from the OAS to the University should have rung some bells of alarm in the History Department, particularly about the wisdom of allowing Dr Hayward’s thesis to proceed without close and rigorous scrutiny. It should have raised serious questions about the supervision of a thesis on a sensitive subject by an academic not expert in the field. The Department should have compared what had been written to date with what had been summarised in the thesis proposal.

The Registrar referred the OAS letter to Professor McIntyre who instructed the Registrar thus: ‘I think it important that the University replies blandly but firmly to these people that the interference they have attempted is intolerable. Indeed the inclusion about the conversation with Vincent Orange in the letter to you is probably illegal since it was taken from a tape, which was illegally filmed and is the subject of an injunction.’

On 26 May 1992, the Registrar wrote to the President of OAS saying, ‘the Head of Department informs me that the thesis was in draft form only and is incomplete. As such, it is at present a matter of discussion between Mr Joel Hayward and his supervisor. Its final assessment will be the task of its examiners. At neither stage, would outside comment be appropriate or helpful.’ 2.27 Dr Hayward initiated legal proceedings against OAS arising out of this incident.

These took the form of an application for pre-trial discovery of recordings (tapes & video) made by OAS of Dr Hayward. The Working Party caused a search to be made of the records of the High Court. It perused copies of the documents there filed. Contrary to Professor David McIntyre’s understanding, as shown in his letter to the Registrar, there was no injunction sought or granted. The proceedings were settled out of Court on 22 June 1992.

There is no record of any terms of settlement on the Court file. The OAS claimed in a further letter to the Registrar on 9 September 1992, that Dr Hayward had retracted the alleged clarification of his views and that there were no grounds for lessening concern. The OAS claimed that Dr Hayward had not complied with the settlement of the Court proceedings. Alleged failure to implement a Court settlement had nothing to do with the University.

If the terms of a settlement of Court proceedings had not been met, then that omission should have been a matter for the Court to consider, not the University. Nevertheless, the 9 September 1992 letter (Appendix J) should have indicated to the University, that the Hayward thesis was likely to be rigorously and critically considered outside the University. Dr Orange (who was overseas at the time of the first OAS letter) may not have known of the initial OAS approach.

Nor is it clear that the 9 September 1992 letter was ever brought to the attention of anybody in the History Department. The Registrar of the University (to whom the majority of University mail is addressed) has no recollection of ever seeing this letter himself. It may have been sent by a Registry staff member to the History Department but there is no record of that. 2.28 Dr Hayward claimed that after the surreptitious interview, he had been harassed in various ways on a number of occasions.

It is not part of the Working Party’s brief to examine these allegations except to note that some harassment of Dr Hayward seems to have been known to some members of the History Department but not to others. The fact that Dr Hayward had been harassed should have emphasised that, despite the need to uphold academic freedom, this particular thesis needed to be irreproachable in its scholarship.

Despite the alleged harassment and the OAS actions, Dr Hayward continued to work on his thesis, although he was under some stress. 2.29 The thesis was put into final form sometime between Dr Orange’s return in September 1992 and the alleged date of its formal submission to the University, i.e. 5 March 1993. Dr Hayward claimed that he did little work on the thesis until after he had finished his papers in November 1992 and until after a subsequent holiday.

He claimed, and Dr Orange did not disagree, that he had had little discussion with Dr Orange until the thesis was in its final form in early 1993. At some stage during the concluding stages of the candidature, Dr Orange suggested to Dr Hayward that his thesis should have a clear and forceful conclusion. Dr Hayward thought in retrospect that he had written the Introduction and the Conclusion in early 1993.

Dr Hayward and Dr Orange agreed that Dr Hayward gave a final draft of the thesis to Dr Orange at his then home in Harewood Road in January 1993. Dr Orange later returned the draft to Dr Hayward without comment as to its content. Dr Hayward later formally presented the finished thesis to Dr Orange and not to the Registry, as the Regulations required. 2.30 The Working Party interviewed Mr Michael Sykes, who has been with the Academic Registry for many years.

He recounted how, in the early 1990s and before, some Departments were in the habit of accepting theses from students for examination, in contravention of the Regulations which required the student to lodge the thesis at the Registry. Some Departments did not advise the Registry of the names of the examiners, as required by the Regulations.

In such circumstances Mr Sykes would have to ask the Department to supply a date on which a thesis had been lodged so that this information could be recorded on the student’s academic record. One practical reason for fixing a date was that, under the Regulations, if a thesis were not filed by 1 March, the student became liable for a further year’s tuition fees. A few days of latitude were allowed.

Because Dr Hayward says he handed in his thesis in January to Dr Orange, the Working Party treats with some scepticism the 5 March date shown on his academic record. University Scholarship records note that on 16 February 1993, Dr Hayward was given an extension to 31 March by the Academic Administration Committee of the Academic Board (AAC) to complete the requirements for his Masters degree. He had applied for a doctoral scholarship.

This extension was noted as having been granted on medical grounds. The relevant Regulation for an MA History thesis stated that it should normally be presented to the Registrar not later than 30 November in the year of enrolment.

The only communication the Registry received over the thesis was a formal letter from the Department, dated 31 March 1993, advising the result of the examination and that the degree could be conferred. 31 March was the cut-off date for providing information if a student wished to graduate at the May graduation ceremony. It was also the cut-off date for this information in respect of the doctoral scholarship application.

The informal and lax procedures demonstrated above have now been replaced by much greater adherence to University-wide standards and Regulations. Part of the difficulties here recounted resulted from the decision to allow Dr Hayward to write his thesis in his first year, instead of taking papers. 2.31 Also of interest is the application for a doctoral scholarship made by Dr Hayward.

On 16 November 1992, Professor David McIntyre as Head of Department, supported the application for a doctoral scholarship to enable Dr Hayward to undertake a PhD with a biography of David Irving as his suggested thesis subject. The approval noted that Dr Hayward: (a) is expected to gain First Class Honours; (b) was one of the best, if not the best in the 1992 Honours year; (c) has outstanding research experience, having nearly completed an MA thesis ‘of PhD proportions’.

There were other laudatory comments on his research and industry. 2.32 Despite the warning to the History Department and the University implicit in the OAS May 1992 letter, there seems to the Working Party to have been no attempt made within the Department by those who knew what Dr Hayward was doing to modify and/or re-assess critically the thesis or its subject or treatment.

On its final lodgment, according to Registry records, the thesis was named ‘The Fate of Jews in German Hands’ as well as bearing the secondary name indicating a study of Holocaust Revisionism. Shortly before its final submission, Dr Orange advised Dr Hayward that a thesis needed a catchy or dramatic title; Dr Hayward agreed and the principal title was given. The title is broad in the extreme. It does not even restrict the time period.

Despite having worked so intimately with Dr Hayward during the writing of the thesis, considering him a friend and treating him as a colleague, Dr Orange, in accordance with the then established procedures in the Department (and indeed most of the University), assumed the role of examiner of the MA thesis.

2.33 The University’s General Course and Examination Regulations (Section H3), in force in April 1992 indicated that all theses should be examined by such persons as are appointed by the Council of the University on the recommendation of the Head of Department ‘in consultation with the supervisor or supervisors’. This duty of the Council was delegated to the Academic Board in 1991, which in turn delegated the appointment of examiners to the AAC.

The Working Party finds no record of approval by the AAC of the appointment of Dr Orange as internal examiner, or of Professor Jensen as external examiner.

The Working Party understands that such formal approval, despite the provisions in the Regulations, was rarely sought by Departments in the Arts Faculty in 1991-3. 2.34 Under Section J of the same Regulations, the appointment of an external examiner was at the discretion of the Head of Department following consultation with ‘the appropriate examiners’. Again, such appointment was formally to be made by the Council on the recommendation of the Head of Department.

In practice, the appointment should have been made by the AAC, under delegation. The apparatus mandated by the Regulations was not activated in this case. In accordance with established practice, the supervisor of the thesis, Dr Orange, became the internal examiner, although one reading of the Regulations might suggest that the examiner and supervisor should have been separate people.

Appendix K shows all the relevant University Regulations in force in 1991-3: i.e. a) The General Course and Examination Regulations (K1) (b) The Academic Awards Regulations (K2) and (c) The degree of Master of Arts — specific requirements for History (K3).

There may have been minor changes over the three years to some parts of these Regulations, but the parts which are relevant to this enquiry did not change over the years in question. 2.35 Dr Orange arranged for Professor John Jensen, Professor of History at the University of Waikato, to be the external examiner. This appointment was made with approval of Professor David McIntyre but does not seem to have attracted any other administrative approval from Faculty or University level.

Canterbury’s History Department’s normal exchange of examiners was with the University of Otago. Each Department usually examined the other’s post-graduate students. The choice of Professor Jensen was deemed appropriate by Dr Orange and Professor David McIntyre because of Professor Jensen’s recognised knowledge of and specialty in the Second World War and the history of Eastern Europe. Contact with Professor Jensen was by way of informal telephone call from Dr Orange.

There was no formal certificate, as required by Regulation H3 of the General Course and Examination Regulations, from Dr Orange to Professor Jensen certifying that the work had been purely that of the student using his own resources ‘under the direct supervision of the supervisor’ and ‘stating what part the supervisor played in the conduct of the research over the preparation of the work’. Dr Orange’s examiner’s report does indicate the extent of his role as supervisor.

The NZJC in its submissions suggested the names of other academics in both New Zealand and Australia who would have been more suitable as external examiner on the grounds of greater knowledge of the Holocaust history. The Working Party is not in a position to assess this contention. It is not clear when the thesis was sent by Dr Orange to Professor Jensen.

It seems likely that Dr Orange’s report was made available to Professor Jensen before Professor Jensen made his initial assessment, which he faxed to Dr Orange on or before 31 March 1993. 2.36 Dr Orange’s assessment of the thesis dated 23 March 1993 was highly favourable and it appears as Appendix L. Of particular concern to the Working Party is Dr Orange’s statement: ‘Hayward’s thesis is that the Nazis did not attempt the systematic extermination of Jews during the Second World War.

In particular, he finds the evidence that gas chambers were built and used for this purpose unconvincing.’ Such a statement articulates, probably unwittingly, one of the key elements of Holocaust denial and also demonstrates the potentially explosive nature of the thesis topic. Professor Jensen’s comment was similarly favourable (Appendix M), although he did criticise the length of the thesis and questioned some of its conclusions.

Both Dr Orange and Professor Jensen agreed on an A+ grade and First Class Honours. Dr Orange noted in his report that his own contribution to the thesis had been confined to stylistic modifications and that he had had no input into the subject matter.

2.37 There was a meeting in the Department, apparently some time between 23 March 1993, the date when Dr Orange wrote his examiner’s report, and 31 March 1993, the date when Dr Peters (who at that date held the role of DoGS) advised the Registry of the result of Dr Hayward’s examination. Recollections of that meeting are hazy and no record exists. Dr Orange thinks that it was attended by Professor McIntyre, Dr Peters, himself and those who had taught papers taken by Dr Hayward.

He thought the meeting would have had before it his examiner’s report and a verbal indication from Dr Orange of Professor Jensen’s view. Professor Jensen’s full written report (Appendix M) was not completed until 15 April 1993. It refers to a faxed communication of his preliminary judgment. Professor Jensen confirmed to the Working Party that he sent the result by fax before 31 March because Dr Orange was keen for a prompt response in order for Dr Hayward to graduate in